Judgment : 1. Challenging the order of dismissal passed by the learned District Munsif, Kovilpatti, dated 10.03.2004, made in T.A. No.160 of 2004 in O.S. No.205 of 2000, the petitioners who are the plaintiffs 2 to 6 in the said Suit have come forward with this Revision. 2. Originally, the, plaintiffs have filed the above Suit with a prayer to set aside the sale dated 22.04.2000, in an Execution Proceedings in E.P. No.85 of 1990 in O.S. No.146 of 1981, on the file of the learned District Munsif, Kovilpatti. Subsequently, the plaintiffs have filed I.A. No.160 of 2004, seeking to amend the plaint to include the prayer for recovery of possession, which was resisted by the defendants. The lower Court has dismissed the said interlocutory Application. Challenging the same, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 3. Admittedly, a Suit in O.S. No.146 of 1981, was filed previously and the same was decreed. The matter was taken up on Appeal and the Appeal was dismissed confirming the decree. Thereafter, E.P. No.85 of 1990 was filed and the same was pending on the said Court. One Mariammal has filed O.S. No.205 of 2000, for setting aside the sale in the above E.P. No.85 of 1990. Since Mariammal died, the petitioners herein were added as her legal representatives. During the pendency of the Suit in O.S. No.205 of 2000, delivery of the property was effected in execution of the decree in O.S. No.146 of 1981 on 11.11.2003. Since, the petitioners were dispossessed on 11.11.2003, they have filed LA. No.160 of 2004, to add the prayer for recovery of possession also in the Suit. 4. The learnedcounsel for the petitioners would submit that since the delivery was effected during the pendency of the Suit, absolutely there is necessity for the petitioners/plaintiffs 2 to 6 to amend the Suit suitably to include the prayer for recovery of possession also. 5. Thelearned counsel for the respondents would submit that filing of the suit in O.S. No.205 of 2000, itself is clear abuse of process of law and he would further submit that under Order 21, Rule 99, the petitioners were at liberty to file a Claim Application before the Executing Court complaining about the dispossession and therefore, the Suit itself is not maintainable. 6. I have considered the rival contentions. 7. 6. I have considered the rival contentions. 7. Now the question whether the Suit in O.S. No.205 of 2000 is maintainable under law or not is to be decided only by the Trial Court after affording sufficient opportunity to both parties concerned and on the basis of materials available, on record. Therefore, I am not considering the said question at all. 8. Admittedly, the petitioners were dispossessed on 11.11.2003, subsequent to the filing of the said Suit. The petitioners claim to have title for ever, despite the decree and other proceedings in O.S. No.146 of 1981, their possession is not disturbed. Therefore, I am of the considered view, it is for the petitioners/plaintiffs 2 to 6 to establish before the Court whether they have got title over the suit property and whether the sale made by the Executing Court is correct or not. But, now, to answer the limited question whether the amendment as prayed for by the petitioners is allowed or not. I am of the considered view that since the dispossession was made during the pendency of the Suit in O.S. No.205 of 2000, amendment as prayed for is necessarily to be allowed. The lower Court was not right in dismissing the same. 9. In the result, the order passed by the learned District Munsif, Kovilpatti dated 10.03.2004 made in I.A. No.160 of 2004 in O.S. No.205 of 2000 is set aside. I.A. No.160 of 2004 is allowed. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P is closed.